Gillian D Sanders1, Peter J Neumann2, Anirban Basu3, Dan W Brock4, David Feeny5, Murray Krahn6, Karen M Kuntz7, David O Meltzer8, Douglas K Owens9, Lisa A Prosser10, Joshua A Salomon11, Mark J Sculpher12, Thomas A Trikalinos13, Louise B Russell14, Joanna E Siegel15, Theodore G Ganiats16. 1. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, Department of Pharmacy, and Departments of Health Services and Economics, University of Washington, Seattle. 4. Division of Medical Ethics, Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Economics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 6. Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada7Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative, Toronto General Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada8Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. Division of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 8. Departments of Medicine and Economics, Harris School of Public Policy Studies, and Center for Health and the Social Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 9. VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California12Center for Health Policy/Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 10. Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit, Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor14Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor. 11. Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 12. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, England. 13. Department of Health Services, Policy and Practice, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 14. Department of Economics and Institute for Health, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 15. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Washington, DC. 16. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Since publication of the report by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine in 1996, researchers have advanced the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis, and policy makers have experimented with its application. The need to deliver health care efficiently and the importance of using analytic techniques to understand the clinical and economic consequences of strategies to improve health have increased in recent years. OBJECTIVE: To review the state of the field and provide recommendations to improve the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses. The intended audiences include researchers, government policy makers, public health officials, health care administrators, payers, businesses, clinicians, patients, and consumers. DESIGN: In 2012, the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine was formed and included 2 co-chairs, 13 members, and 3 additional members of a leadership group. These members were selected on the basis of their experience in the field to provide broad expertise in the design, conduct, and use of cost-effectiveness analyses. Over the next 3.5 years, the panel developed recommendations by consensus. These recommendations were then reviewed by invited external reviewers and through a public posting process. FINDINGS: The concept of a "reference case" and a set of standard methodological practices that all cost-effectiveness analyses should follow to improve quality and comparability are recommended. All cost-effectiveness analyses should report 2 reference case analyses: one based on a health care sector perspective and another based on a societal perspective. The use of an "impact inventory," which is a structured table that contains consequences (both inside and outside the formal health care sector), intended to clarify the scope and boundaries of the 2 reference case analyses is also recommended. This special communication reviews these recommendations and others concerning the estimation of the consequences of interventions, the valuation of health outcomes, and the reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The Second Panel reviewed the current status of the field of cost-effectiveness analysis and developed a new set of recommendations. Major changes include the recommendation to perform analyses from 2 reference case perspectives and to provide an impact inventory to clarify included consequences.
IMPORTANCE: Since publication of the report by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine in 1996, researchers have advanced the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis, and policy makers have experimented with its application. The need to deliver health care efficiently and the importance of using analytic techniques to understand the clinical and economic consequences of strategies to improve health have increased in recent years. OBJECTIVE: To review the state of the field and provide recommendations to improve the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses. The intended audiences include researchers, government policy makers, public health officials, health care administrators, payers, businesses, clinicians, patients, and consumers. DESIGN: In 2012, the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine was formed and included 2 co-chairs, 13 members, and 3 additional members of a leadership group. These members were selected on the basis of their experience in the field to provide broad expertise in the design, conduct, and use of cost-effectiveness analyses. Over the next 3.5 years, the panel developed recommendations by consensus. These recommendations were then reviewed by invited external reviewers and through a public posting process. FINDINGS: The concept of a "reference case" and a set of standard methodological practices that all cost-effectiveness analyses should follow to improve quality and comparability are recommended. All cost-effectiveness analyses should report 2 reference case analyses: one based on a health care sector perspective and another based on a societal perspective. The use of an "impact inventory," which is a structured table that contains consequences (both inside and outside the formal health care sector), intended to clarify the scope and boundaries of the 2 reference case analyses is also recommended. This special communication reviews these recommendations and others concerning the estimation of the consequences of interventions, the valuation of health outcomes, and the reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The Second Panel reviewed the current status of the field of cost-effectiveness analysis and developed a new set of recommendations. Major changes include the recommendation to perform analyses from 2 reference case perspectives and to provide an impact inventory to clarify included consequences.
Authors: Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Lea Prince; Lan Xiao; Nan Lv; Lisa G Rosas; Elizabeth M Venditti; Megan A Lewis; Mark B Snowden; Jun Ma Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Thomas S G Sehested; Jenny Bjerre; Seul Ku; Andrew Chang; Alison Jahansouz; Douglas K Owens; Mark A Hlatky; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Emily P Hyle; Justine A Scott; Paul E Sax; Lucia R I Millham; Caitlin M Dugdale; Milton C Weinstein; Kenneth A Freedberg; Rochelle P Walensky Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-03-17 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Michelle H Leppert; Sharon N Poisson; John D Carroll; David E Thaler; Chong H Kim; Karen D Orjuela; P Michael Ho; James F Burke; Jonathan D Campbell Journal: Stroke Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Elizabeth C Rhodes; Eeshwar K Chandrasekar; Shivani A Patel; K M Venkat Narayan; Thomas V Joshua; Lovoria B Williams; Lucy Marion; Mohammed K Ali Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Bart S Ferket; Vinod H Thourani; Pierre Voisine; Samuel F Hohmann; Helena L Chang; Peter K Smith; Robert E Michler; Gorav Ailawadi; Louis P Perrault; Marissa A Miller; Karen O'Sullivan; Stephanie L Mick; Emilia Bagiella; Michael A Acker; Ellen Moquete; Judy W Hung; Jessica R Overbey; Anuradha Lala; Margaret Iraola; James S Gammie; Annetine C Gelijns; Patrick T O'Gara; Alan J Moskowitz Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2019-07-02 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Uri Ladabaum; Ajitha Mannalithara; Joel V Brill; Zachary Levin; Kate M Bundorf Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 10.864